1
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this
document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: 2025-032965
In the matter between:
In the matter between:
M[… ] F[… ] Applicant
(Identity Number: 9[… ])
In re the minor child G[…] J[…] S[…]
and
A[… ] W[… ] S[… ] Respondent
(Passport number: 40578046)
JUDGMENT (LEAVE TO APPEAL)
WANLESS J
Introduction
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES
4 September 2026 ___________________
DATE SIGNATURE
2
[1] In this application, M […] F[…] (“the Applicant”) seeks leave to appeal, either to
the Full Court of this Division, alternatively, the Supreme Court of Appeal (“the
SCA”), against the judgment and order (paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 thereof) of
this Court granted on the 8 th of June 2026. The application is opposed by A […]
W[…] S[…] (“the Respondent”).
[2] The principles of law to be applied in such an application, in terms of sections
17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 (“the Act”) , are trite.
This brief judgment (as necessitated by the very nature of the application itself)
will not be burdened unnecessarily by setting out same and referring to the
authorities dealing therewith.
[3] The Applicant relies upon both of the aforesaid subsections of the Act. In terms
of section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Act, leave to appeal should only be granted if this
Court is satisfied that an appeal court would (not could) come to a different
finding than it did and would grant a different order. In terms of section
17(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, leave to appeal should only be granted if this Court is
satisfied that there is some compelling reason why the appeal should be heard,
including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration.
[4] During the course of argument before this Court on the 20
th of August 2026,
this Court was advised by Counsel for the Applicant that , in the event of this
Court granting the Applicant leave to appeal, it would not be necessary to
burden the SCA therewith and the matter could be dealt with by the Full Court
of this Division.
Grounds of Appeal
[5] These grounds are set out in the Applicant’s “Application for Leave to Appeal”.
In order not to burden this judgment unnecessarily, those grounds will not be
set out verbatim herein. To do so would serve little or no purpose.
Discussion
3
[6] Having carefully considered the submissions made by both the Applicant and
the Respondent in this application for leave to appeal, it is the finding of this
Court that the Applicant has clearly failed to show that another court would
come to a different decision and that the Applicant should be granted leave to
appeal. Further, there are no compelling reasons why the appeal should be
heard. It was not submitted that there are any conflicting judgments on the
matter under consideration. In the premises, the Applicant's application for
leave to appeal should be dismissed.
[7] This Court should also add that , in making such an order , it further bears in
mind the oft -repeated narrative of the courts of appeal that the court a quo
should be slow to grant applications for leave to appeal in matters where the
prospects of success are not good. This avoids unnecessarily burdening the
appeal courts' rolls.
Costs
[8] As to the issue of costs, there are no unusual circumstances pertaining to this
matter that would cause this Court, in the exercise of its general discretion
pertaining to the issue of costs, to deviate from the trite principle that costs
should normally follow the result. In the premises, the Applicant should be
ordered to pay the costs of the application for leave to appeal.
Order
[9] This Court makes the following order:
1. The application for leave to appeal against the judgment and orders of this
Court under case number 2025- 032965, granted on 8 June 2026, is
dismissed.
2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs of this application, on the
party and party scale (Scale B).
4
___________________________
BC WANLESS
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
JOHANNESBURG
Date of Hearing: 20 August 2026
Date of Judgment: 4 September 2026
Appearances
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT
F Bezuidenhout
Attorneys for the Applicant
Vanessa Fernihough and Associates
083 377 9600
Email: wandi@vfalaw.co.za
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
N Strathern
Maisels Chambers 3
082 940 0111
Email: nicky@strathern.co.za
Attorneys for the Respondent
5
Ulrich Roux and Associates
072 697 3138
Email: storm@rouxlegal.com